The geographic scope of the humanitarian situation analysis for Myanmar in 2026 included 227 out of 330 townships, roughly two thirds of the country. The reduction in scope is the direct result of a more in-depth analysis of the main humanitarian shocks—conflict and earthquake—having caused high levels of humanitarian needs. As in previous years and in adherence to global guidance, the severity and number of people in need of humanitarian assistance in 2026 were calculated using the Joint and Intersectoral Analysis Framework. This approach ensures that intersectoral linkages and compounding effects are acknowledged and reflected alongside sector-specific needs and severities. The analysis was undertaken at the township level, which at times was challenging given the lack of availability of granular data at this administrative level. The analysis and presentation of needs in this HNRP aim to reflect the mainstreaming of inclusive and quality programming, with AAP, gender, disability, GBV, human rights, protection, PSEA, and other cross-cutting considerations integrated into the response.
The Joint and Intersectoral Analysis Framework process was conducted through the Needs Monitoring and Analysis Working Group under the ICCG and included technical and information management focal points from each cluster, as well as MIMU and REACH. Analysed data sources include both nationwide assessments and cluster-specific surveys and data collection aligned with global best practice, such as the 2025 MSNA and Food Security & Nutrition Analysis, allowing for comparisons of the situation since 2021.
More granular data on displacement trends was also analysed, especially regarding recurring displacement. Consistent with 2025, a projection approach was taken to estimate the number of IDPs in 2026, instead of relying upon the static number of IDPs at the point of HNRP publication. This was achieved through analysis of movement trends (stock/flow) in the Population Movement Tracker and the UNHCR Statistical Report, combined with the scenarios and assumptions underlying the 2026 HNRP, expert opinion, and a severity scale analysis of displacement drivers, trends, conflict data and presence of armed groups.
For the four population groups under this HNRP, calculations were based on:
- IDPs: Projection of new and protracted IDPs, including displaced stateless people, people living in camps, camp-like settings and informal sites, and people who are re-displaced.
- Returned, resettled, and locally integrated IDPs: Projection of new and past returned IDPs in need of ongoing assistance.
- Non-displaced stateless people: Baseline data of Rohingya people living in their own villages.
- Other shock-affected people with humanitarian needs: baseline data estimated using a combination of vulnerabilities, including people affected by humanitarian shocks, IDP host communities, people living in high conflict areas with restricted access to basic services, and non-displaced people in moderate or severe food insecurity or facing malnutrition.
Where data gaps remain, best practice proxy indicators were used.
Early Recovery
The Early Recovery Cluster defined the population in need, severity, and targets for the 2026 HNRP using the baseline population dataset as the starting point. This dataset was adjusted to reflect the specific conditions in earthquake-affected areas, drawing on complementary data sources that provided insights on debris, affected locations, and population exposure. These inputs helped validate and refine the planning figures, ensuring alignment with ground realities. Severity levels were established based on the extent of debris, access disruptions, and impacts on essential services, while the target population—set at 70 per cent of the PiN—was determined in consultation with the Debris and Waste Management Specialist to ensure technical accuracy and operational feasibility. This approach promotes consistency across clusters while remaining grounded in the actual context of affected communities.
Education
The Education Cluster PiN calculation was conducted using the Global Education Cluster (GEC) PiN calculation platform, based on 2025 MSNA data. The methodology applied four core dimensions: access to learning, learning conditions, protective environment and individual aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances included risks and barriers such as protection concerns on the way to and from school, child labour, child marriage, lack of documentation to enrol, and discrimination or stigmatization; these were classified as extreme sectoral deprivations (severity level 4), while early pregnancy and children associated with armed forces and groups were categorized as sectoral collapse (severity level 5). For educators (teachers and school administrative personnel), The Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards teacher–learner ratios were applied. Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) data was used to triangulate and refine the interpretation of severity at township level. The 2025 MSNA provided nationwide coverage across four population groups (IDPs, returnees, stateless populations and other shock-affected people), enabling an evidence-based PiN calculation. Gender distribution followed the 2025 population baseline and was applied consistently to the PiN, with females representing 52 per cent and males 48 per cent.
Food Security
The Food Security Cluster’s needs analysis for 2026 draws on multiple evidence streams to estimate 8.5 million people in need of food security assistance. The methodology integrates quantitative and qualitative data, with particular emphasis on the September 2025 Food Security and Nutrition Analysis, which identified phase 4 (emergency) conditions in Chin, Kachin, Kayah, Rakhine, and northern Shan. Special attention is given to the 964,000 people classified in phase 4 and to some 29,000 IDPs at risk of sliding from phase 2 (stress) into Phase 3 (crisis) if assistance is reduced or interrupted.
The analytical framework applies standard food security indicators while incorporating key contextual factors from the April–May 2025 earthquake assessments in Mandalay, Sagaing and Shan, as well as other partner-led assessments and regular rapid assessments from subnational hubs. Protection, gender and age considerations are integrated throughout the analysis, and consultations with local partners help validate findings and ensure relevance in hard-to-reach areas. Environmental considerations are also reflected where data allow. This multisource, multidimensional approach captures both immediate needs and underlying vulnerabilities and underpins a targeting strategy that considers severity, displacement status and specific needs of different population groups.
Health
The Global Health Cluster developed the PiN calculator to estimate the health PiN using country-specific data. Initial PiN estimates were reviewed and adjusted with field teams to ensure that figures reflect the situation in priority townships. All health-specific indicators are identified and agreed by the Global Health Cluster and are aligned with the SDGs and other global targets.
While the MSNA remains the primary data source for Health Cluster prioritization, earthquake-specific assessments provided additional insight into the health situation in earthquake-affected areas. The Health Cluster also used cholera and malaria risk ranking to assess severity levels across different parts of Myanmar, and records of attacks on health care to evidence constrained access. For gender- and age-disaggregated data, as well as data on disability, the MSNA remains the sole source of information, helping to ensure that areas with limited access to health services are prioritized.
Nutrition
The Nutrition Cluster’s methodology for calculating PiN and targets is aligned with Global Nutrition Analysis, focusing on the people most affected by malnutrition. Estimates were based on the number of children under five and PBW, as they were the most vulnerable and most likely to require nutrition support within the 227 townships included in the 2026 HNRP. Geographic prioritization used the September 2025 Food Insecurity and Acute Malnutrition Analysis, combined with ACLED conflict severity, to identify areas with the highest nutrition and access constraints. This resulted in an estimate of people in need, including those likely to become malnourished later. For the first time, this analysis served as the primary evidence base, complemented by the Nutrition Vulnerability Analysis and seasonal trend data.
Baseline population projections were applied to estimate PBW (4.6 per cent, of whom pregnant women 1.4 per cent and breastfeeding women 3.2 per cent). Targeting was refined using severity (143 townships) and ACLED (24 townships without coverage), applying coverage rates of 30–100 per cent with full coverage for IDPs and stateless people. The methodology also allocates resources for cross-cutting commitments (AAP and duty of care), with PSEA integrated at no additional cost.
Protection
The Protection Cluster PiN calculation is based on a composite analysis that integrates five key parameters to capture the multidimensional nature of protection risks and vulnerabilities across Myanmar. These parameters are: (1) conflict shocks, derived from ACLED to quantify the frequency and severity of incidents and fatalities; (2) protection risk severity, using all 15 core protection risks as control factors to determine the overall intensity of threats; (3) findings from the MSNA, providing household-level insights on perceived safety, access to services and exposure to risks; (4) the distribution and concentration of IDPs to identify areas under heightened stress; and (5) access to assistance, informed by 5W reporting to assess coverage gaps and operational constraints. Specific risk indicators for specialized areas of protection, including child protection, GBV and mine action, are also incorporated when determining PiN.
Each parameter is standardized and weighted to generate a composite index, which determines the proportion of the population in need within each township. This integration of conflict, protection severity, displacement and access dimensions allows the methodology to capture both acute and protracted protection risks and to reflect the complex, evolving realities faced by affected people.
Target setting prioritizes shock-affected areas with the highest severity of protection needs, guided by township-level severity analysis and multisource inputs, including PIMS data, severity mapping and partner consultations. A “reality check” process factors in partners’ operational presence and capacity, access constraints, absorptive capacity, historical reach and projected funding to keep targets realistic and achievable. Targeting focuses on areas classified as severity levels 3, 4 and 5—elevated sectoral deprivation, extreme deprivation and sectoral collapse—where protection risks are most acute, essential services are severely disrupted, and communities face the greatest barriers to safety, dignity and access to assistance.
Shelter/NFI/ CCCM
The Shelter/NFI/CCCM Cluster's methodology for the 2026 HNRP employed a comprehensive approach using multiple sources to calculate the PiN and define relevant indicators. Grounded in core data from the 2025 MSNA, information on needs was gathered in collaboration with camp management, site focal points, and household assessments. The Cluster then integrated critical additional layers for severity analysis, including ACLED data, IDP settlement types, and historical weather patterns to model cyclone and flood risks. These quantitative findings were continuously verified and refined through focus group discussions and key informant interviews, ensuring community-identified needs and priorities were supported to identify the final activity selection. As part of the reality check, the final target-setting was informed by the operational capacity of cluster partners. The applied methodology guarantees a needs-based, contextually aware, and operationally feasible response.
WASH
Needs indicators were selected to capture immediate public health risks and dignity: access to safe drinking water; functionality and reliability of sanitation; presence and use of handwashing facilities; facility-sharing ratios; and water-quality parameters linked to AWD and cholera. PiN figures are derived from severity mapping aligned with the inter-cluster analysis, combining multisectoral needs assessments, cluster-specific assessments, displacement tracking, market functionality reviews, flood and seasonality overlays, and partner activity reporting. Where direct measurement is missing, transparent proxy assumptions are applied.
The analysis drew on the 2025 MSNA, WASH rapid assessments in Chin, Kayah, and Rakhine, displacement tracking rounds, earthquake-related WASH technical assessments, analysis of flood-affected areas, health surveillance bulletins for waterborne diseases, and AWD risk mapping. Ongoing monitoring will use monthly reporting for new shocks and quarterly reporting for protracted contexts, combined with regular population movement updates, disease-surveillance alerts, market reviews and community feedback systems. Assessment scheduling is coordinated through the cluster calendar, with shared tools, site lists and deduplication protocols.
Gender and protection considerations inform all assumptions, including barriers for women and girls to safely use facilities, menstrual health needs, risks for persons with disabilities and older persons, lighting and travel distance to water points, and crowding at communal latrines.